An uncivil discussion on gun control
January 8, 2013 7:15 AM Subscribe

Piers Morgan stares his chief critic in the face. Alex Jones [previously] is a controversial radio DJ responsible for, amongst other things, starting a petition to have CNN's Piers Morgan deported for comments critical of the Second Amendment. Jones was invited by Morgan to debate gun rights on Morgan's primetime show. This is what happened.
posted by LondonYank (164 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite

Having to root for Piers Morgan in any respect makes me feel dirty in ways I previously thought were not possible.
posted by mightygodking at 7:16 AM on January 8, 2013 [71 favorites]

How do you yell for that long?
posted by zzazazz at 7:18 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I know what you mean. There is something so.... uncomfortable about realising you have any sympathy for Morgan whatsoever.
posted by LondonYank at 7:18 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Morgan has enraged the extreme end of the US gun lobby

Also known as the US gun lobby.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:19 AM on January 8, 2013 [117 favorites]

Anyone who can sit that close to Alex Jones and not punch him in the face deserves my respect.
posted by HuronBob at 7:21 AM on January 8, 2013 [13 favorites]

If we can't deport him we could always send him to those FEMA camps out in Kansas. You know, the ones where they have mostly right-wingers digging holes perpetually for no particular reason.

Well, maybe for grains of rice.
posted by IvoShandor at 7:23 AM on January 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

i don't particularly like Morgan but all Jones did was increase in volume the longer he spoke. I don't think the took one breath, so he at the very least has amazing lung capacity.
posted by microm3gas at 7:23 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I am NOT ant-gun; I'm not opposed to sensible regulation, either. But the rabid gun supporters would gain a lot more credibility if every fucking discussion didn't instantly devolve into "they're coming to take our guns!!!!!!".
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:23 AM on January 8, 2013 [22 favorites]

I neglected to mention in the OP that there is a counter-petition on the White House site, started by some UK folks, asking that Piers Morgan be kept in the USA.

We want to keep Piers Morgan in the USA.

There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment.

Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back.

Actually there is a third. It will be hilarious to see how loads of angry Americans react.

posted by LondonYank at 7:29 AM on January 8, 2013 [24 favorites]

declaring that Morgan would not deter him with "little factoids".

I'm really enjoying the open declaration by people (both media personalities and in my life) that they won't let mere things like "information" get in the way of policy decisions.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:32 AM on January 8, 2013 [21 favorites]

Letting alex jones on your TV show? that's your first mistake
posted by kuatto at 7:36 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Holy shit, that sounded like Christmas at my parents' house this year.
posted by punkfloyd at 7:38 AM on January 8, 2013 [24 favorites]

This kind of sensationalist marketing of a problem is precisely why it is impossible to come up with rational solutions to problems in this day and age.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:38 AM on January 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

When you raise your voice and go full crazy, you've already lost. I can't remember how long ago I wrote Alex Jones off as self-serving and kooky.
posted by Catblack at 7:40 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yay for navel-gazing "controversy."
posted by infinitewindow at 7:41 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I saw a few seconds of this on the news this morning.

On the one hand, this is a total Geraldo-like stunt, akin to the time Geraldo got himself hit in the head with a chair, and that sort of stunt journalism is rarely worth any attention at all.

On the other hand, I kind of like having this example to point to of just how utterly insane gun fanatics are in this country. I'd like to hope this might make a few gun owners do a double-take and say "hey, I really don't want to be lumped in with him - and come to think of it, that kinda guy shouldn't really be allowed to own a gun either..."
posted by dnash at 7:41 AM on January 8, 2013 [12 favorites]

I always giggle when gun rights supporters talk revolution.

We've got a Marxist kenyan fascist muslim who stole the election and acorn rex-84 the flouridated water and nationalized our healthcare. He's teamed up with Century 21 to UN his fake birth certificate and steal our precious bodily fluids.

Or whatever, I can never pay too much attention. Point is, Obama is the tyrant your forefathers warned you about, I guess.

If those balding middleaged Keyboard Kommandoes haven't Wolverined their way up the capitol stairs already, they never will. All this high-minded principled founding fathers bullshit is just so much hot air. They're too chickenshit to amount to anything.

We are ruled by morons.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:44 AM on January 8, 2013 [60 favorites]

We've got a Marxist kenyan fascist muslim who stole the election and acorn rex-84 the flouridated water and nationalized our healthcare. He's teamed up with Century 21 to UN his fake birth certificate and steal our precious bodily fluids.

And he's GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by Madamina at 7:46 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

We are ruled by morons.

I thought you said they wouldn't amount to anything, or were you talking about other "leaders" and just throwing that in as an aside?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:47 AM on January 8, 2013

We are ruled by morons. -- Pogo_Fuzzybutt

Actually, it's the banker class that has us in debt slavery.
posted by MikeWarot at 7:48 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Here in Indiana, anecdotal evidence indicates a huge ramp-up in purchases of weapons, with all the usual retail sources running out of stock. (Which hasn't ever happened before).

I wonder what is actually driving this?

I attribute this to a follow the money situation. Who benefits? Gun sellers and manufacturers. How do they accomplish it? Spread FUD.
posted by gjc at 7:49 AM on January 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

I have probably told this one before, but Alex's office is just at the edge of my neighborhood. I see him around town. I listen to him on the local freakshow radio; half for entertainment, half to keep tabs on where the American crazy is going.

I am one of those pinko gun owners (I know, unheard of for some people) and just down the street from my neighborhood and his office is a little gun shop run by a retired social studies teacher. One day I wandered into the shop and it was weird. All of the normally chatty employees were studiously doing anything but paying attention to customers. The other customers were all on one side of the shop. On the other side of the shop was a large blond guy who was ranting. As I walked up beside him, I saw it was Alex and I giggled. I kept giggling until I left the shop.

Alex was ranting, but the rant was different than this one. He felt he was in a safe place, surrounded by people who agreed with him. The rant was worse, crazier, more threatening. He was oblivious to the fact that everyone was trying their best to avoid him, trying to avoid eye contact, trying to quietly let him understand that he should take the gun that he had purchased and go home. You could see the shop guys grimacing and realizing that selling that one gun was probably not a good idea. He doesn't know when or how to stop. He truly believes that he will be martyred for the Patriot cause. And that makes him dangerous. This is the man who is convincing the radical right wing of the country that violent revolution is necessary.

He is a dangerous loon.
posted by Seamus at 7:49 AM on January 8, 2013 [97 favorites]

It's Alex Jones. He's about as representative of gun owners as the Obama phone woman is of Obama supporters.
posted by gyc at 7:50 AM on January 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

I'm really enjoying the open declaration by people (both media personalities and in my life) that they won't let mere things like "information" get in the way of policy decisions.

Well, as Stephen Colbert says, "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."
posted by inturnaround at 7:53 AM on January 8, 2013 [11 favorites]

Seamus, I will pay you cash money to take videos.

And just to get the objections out of the way: ACORN NANNYSTATE DRONE FREEDOM CHAIRMAN MAO SWITZERLAND HITLER HOSPITAL INFECTIONS BLUDGEONING OLD LADIES
posted by Madamina at 7:54 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Here in Indiana, anecdotal evidence indicates a huge ramp-up in purchases of weapons, with all the usual retail sources running out of stock. (Which hasn't ever happened before).

I wonder what is actually driving this?

I would chalk this up to the same mentality that made people think that buying a chicken sandwich was a revolutionary dagger straight through the heart of the gay menace.

Reacting to a gun related tragedy by conspicuously showing off your right to buy guns is cloudy shit-brained thinking.
posted by SharkParty at 8:02 AM on January 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

They're coming to take me away, ha-haa!
posted by Nomyte at 8:02 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

This was post September 11 but pre-(for me)-picture phone.
Otherwise I would have been all over recording that run-in.
posted by Seamus at 8:05 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Piers Morgan and Alex Jones fucking deserve each other. I like the idea of the two of them locked in a room together with no cameras for all eternity.
posted by dersins at 8:06 AM on January 8, 2013 [11 favorites]

Journalists should be deported when they disagree about guns, because the Bill of Rights guarantees we can have them. OK then.
posted by Wordwoman at 8:07 AM on January 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

Piers Morgan and Alex Jones fucking deserve each other. I like the idea of the two of them locked in a room together with no cameras for all eternity.

I vote cameras - no sound - just for giggles.
posted by incandissonance at 8:07 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

cable tv is for elitists
posted by Postroad at 8:09 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Isn't it amazing the way Alex Jones makes you reminisce for the more carefree days of Art Bell?
posted by jonp72 at 8:10 AM on January 8, 2013 [21 favorites]

Seamus: I am also a pinko gun owner. I'm a liberal, not party-affiliated but generally vote democratic, and I have to say that a lot of gun fetishists really freak me out.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:11 AM on January 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Having to root for Piers Morgan in any respect makes me feel dirty in ways I previously thought were not possible.

Say what you will about Jeremy Clarkson, he did punch Piers Morgan.
posted by atrazine at 8:15 AM on January 8, 2013 [15 favorites]

Alex Jones is also a batshit conspiracy theorist who thinks the Jews and Freemasons are lizard people sent here from another planet to steal your purity of essence. Other than a couple entertaining rants in a couple Linklater films, the guy is a useless piece of shit, and can be safely ignored.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:16 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

How come people who want guns because they are afraid of the government never seem to want to cut US military spending?
posted by fings at 8:17 AM on January 8, 2013 [84 favorites]

If you're reading this MeFi thread signed in, you're missing a glimpse into the pro-gun rhetoric via the medium of Google ads:

"OBAMA SAYS, BAN GUNS!
SAY NO!
Click here to fight back"
- nagr.org

"What you must know before you carry concealed"
- usconcealedcarry.net
posted by rh at 8:19 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Alex Jones does fings, but yeah, many don't.

I just wish Piers had let him go on for another 20 seconds after GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM I think we might have gotten him to actually start flinging literal poo.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:20 AM on January 8, 2013

Alex Jones is in the business of selling merch to paranoids, and business is good. I have no idea if he believes the crap he spews, but I do know he makes a comfortable living off of DVDs, T-shirts, etc. The lonely white middle-class, middle-agd male with a Ford Ranger & a chip on his shoulder is merely a demographic to be taken advantage of, from what I can tell.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:23 AM on January 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

I wonder what is actually driving this?

The frankly not-unfounded idea that there will be certain guns that you'll soon be unable to purchase, at least in their current configuration?

When the 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban was passed, the prices on "pre-ban" models went up dramatically and immediately, and stayed up until the ban lapsed in 2004. When the registration of new machine guns was banned in 1986, prices also went up -- and the price of a legally-registered (meaning resellable) pre-1986 machine gun is today stratospheric. So there is a lot of precedent for legal action suddenly changing both the availability and pricing of firearms.

Basically anyone who ever thought that they might kinda-sorta-maybe want an AR or AK variant and has the means to do so, is probably standing in line at a gun store, just due to the uncertainty about whether they'll be able to get one in six months or a year or ten. That has driven prices up tremendously and caused across the board stockouts.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:25 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Odinsdream: For what it's worth, and I am no fan of Morgan, but I think he knew what he was doing, bringing this guy out of the shadows and into the prime time limelight.

Sure, Alex Jones is polarising. I think Morgan knew that Jones would hoist himself with his own petard, on national television, and (Morgan hoped) alienate some people who might have found themselves on the fence.

Either that, or he knew it would be a way to boost his flagging ratings... ahem.
posted by LondonYank at 8:25 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

So, this is CNN testing a new editorial direction? Screaming and Unbalanced?
posted by Thorzdad at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Alex Jones is a fascinating fellow. He's certainly a conspiracy theorist, however, he has a (growing) audience. That cannot be ignored. There are an increasing number of people that respond to the fear and paranoia.

In terms of his gun arguments, it's quite confusing. On one hand, he is correct. The first thing totalitarian regimes often do is disarm the populous so that they cannot fight back.

On the other hand, if we look at Europe, European democracy functions quite well without an armed populous. I'm continually pleased at the level of representation at the local and National level a citizen in the UK. I guess you don't need guns when 1) your vote counts, and 2) the government has adequate protections in place against corruption.

Also, the evidence in Europe spans countries where guns are heavily legislated (like the UK) and countries that still have firearm cultures (Switzerland). So the argument is less about guns, than it is about the civil society itself.

Alex Jones is afraid of the government – of any government – probably falling more in the anarchist camp than in the conservative camp. Whilst that's fine in ideology, the reality is that societies need structure and anarchy seems like quite a poor way to manage the varying individual interests of 300+ million people.

A healthy dose of paranoia is never a bad thing. The interesting paradox I find with the Alex Jones' of the world is that on one hand, they point the finger. At the government. At the pharma companies. At the liberals. At Mao, which is rather odd I must say.

The reality is that it is very hard to have 1) a society with low taxes, and 2) a stable society. It's really a choice of what kind of society one wants to live in. Alex Jones wants to live in a society with more guns. He champions Indian women taking on firearms. That is being quite reactionary. Rather than solving the problem, it's treating the symptoms.

Violence is often bourn from desperation, be it poverty, mental illness, or discrimination. To treat the violence problem, the society as a whole must look at what is causing the violence.

In the United States, my own view is that 1) you have a population brought up on the American dream and the primacy of the individual, during, 2) a time of empire (resource-wise). There was always more, if one was willing to work hard. Today, we have 3) a shift of the country from a growth economy to a stable, mature economy. It's nobody's fault, there's no grand conspiracy behind it. Times have changed.

In Europe, it was the period of WW1 and WW2. The continent reached the apex of empire – and economic value extraction. There simply wasn't any more to extract – not at a pace that could keep up with already-high expectations for consumption. What Europe seemed to learn out of that was that in order for economies to be stable, there must be redistribution of wealth across the economic strata of the citizens. Otherwise, capitalism being what it is, the result is a very wealthy upper-class, and a very desperate lower-class.

Victorian England. And then the grand fall and near destruction of the entire continent. Today, it has been rebuilt with social democracies and high rates of wealth redistribution. And minimal numbers of guns, bans on capital punishment, etc. And each of those decisions have been made and perpetuated by voters for the last half century, in most cases. Not because the government has created a police state for the citizens, but because they saw first-hand what happens when the disparity of wealth is extreme, resulting in desperation, chaos, and eventually the near-destruction of society itself.

America is in the same place today. All of the easy wealth has been extracted. The country is no longer growing economically on the same trajectory as it was in the previous half century. High growth rates obscure all manner of broken economic policies and social issues – just ask China and India today. When the growth slows down, the society needs to move from the basis of individualism to collectivism, for the sake of its own survival. Social democracies with social everything (like France) is one way to do it. Direct democracies with privatised but regulated social services is another way (like Switzerland).

The world in which Alex Jones lives is an extension of the Wild West, where a man's home is his castle, and it's all about him. Individualism at it's most powerful. That is not the way of the world today. The world is becoming – moment by moment – more interdependent and interconnected. The Wild West is over.

Thinking out-loud, it's interesting that Alex Jones never proposes any solutions. He only highlights the problems which reinforce his view of an ideal social order. Sadly, that social order ever existed for anyone but white men in a golden period, from the 50s until the 80s. For women, and "minorities" (hate that term), times are quite good.

Perhaps white men like Alex Jones want to keep their guns because it's one of the last vestiges of a dying entitlement. It's funny, because they never mention the cost of "freedom" and the United States economic ascension. That guns were necessary to defend piles of wealth gathered through primitive exploitation, use of force, and genocide.

That part seems to be conveniently forgotten in the endless repeating of the individualism narrative whereby each man is a success unto himself. In that narrative, there was no society that enabled him, or community that supported him. The police are tax-paid servants designed to keep the poor on the other side of the tracks, and public schools are indoctrination camps that generate happy factory workers.

No, Alex Jones never mentions that part of his worldview. Thus, perhaps he wants to hold onto the guns and mount a revolution because he – and his supporters – cannot accept the reality that it is time to change. The time of the rugged individual man is over, and now is the rise of a new America, built around principles of community and social welfare.

All that being said, I'm not sure what to say about the fact that his family fought on both sides of the Alamo. Perhaps confusion is an endemic family condition... maybe a bit of prozac is in order, both today and back in history.
posted by nickrussell at 8:28 AM on January 8, 2013 [111 favorites]

It's amazing how you can justify just about any world view if your definition of cause and effect is loose enough.

Crime is down over the past two years BECAUSE OF GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The government is buying bullets and drones patrol the US BECAUSE OF GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
That rape in India was horrible AND COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The only defense against world tyranny is GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Prozac is a "suicide mass murder pill" against which the only defense is GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao took away the guns; but GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
posted by ook at 8:30 AM on January 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

"On the other hand, if we look at Europe, European democracy functions quite well without an armed populous. I'm continually pleased at the level of representation at the local and National level a citizen in the UK. I guess you don't need guns when 1) your vote counts, and 2) the government has adequate protections in place against corruption."

votes count? adequate protection against corruption? What country do you live in as it clearly is not England.
posted by marienbad at 8:37 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Rather than solving the problem, it's treating the symptoms. Violence is often bourn from desperation, be it poverty, mental illness, or discrimination. To treat the violence problem, the society as a whole must look at what is causing the violence.

Amen, and there's the root of it all! It doesn't matter what supposed "ill" you are talking about here, violence, crime, abortion, etc. Find the root, namely cold, uneducated, hungry, needy children, and their children, and their children's children, and you can solve the issues. The longer we push off what is plain to see in order to preserve status-quo for a shrinking minority of people, the more generations of repair work we're going to need to do.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:47 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

readyfreddy, the demographic here in Austin covers a disturbing range.
You will see infowars stickers on Lexus SUVs and Mercedes, you'll see them on working class trucks and you will see them on the vehicles of the young, "libertarian, pot-head Ron-Paulites.
Across the nation, the audience may skew older, but he has a following amongst the young too. All the stuff he has done with Joe Rogan and the other Sacred Cow comedians does draw them in.
posted by Seamus at 8:52 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

I disagree with many here stating that Jones' followers are middle-aged. I'm middle aged (Gen X) and this doofus does not appeal to my age range at all. My feeling is that it's more for older people (usually called 'old-aged' and starts at age 60), like talk radio and Fox. They're the only ones who have the time to sit around and consume the "product" that these loons produce.

When I worked in a software dev shop, the devs were almost universally right-out-of-college young, and a not-insubstantial number of them were big-time ditto-heads. And gun nuts. Even more so in the IT department. This guy would have been very popular with them.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:53 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Maybe I lead a sheltered life. I'm a software developer too. No one I know in my field describes these whack jobs.
posted by readyfreddy at 9:01 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

The fact that it's this guy from Slacker (NSFW language) boggles my mind.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:10 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

gjc: I attribute this to a follow the money situation. Who benefits? Gun sellers and manufacturers. How do they accomplish it? Spread FUD.

A friend at work is a gun aficionado who tells me that even before the spate of shootings that there was a run on lots of models of guns (ar15 & variants, most popularly) that were selling for way over asking price and spurred waiting lists once stock ran out. You see these wild upswings in purchases with the election of democrat presidents; the sellers whip their clientele into a frenzy with shadowy talk of "president so-and-so's gonna ban this and that".

I imagine this has skyrocketed with the mere specter of gun regulation changes.
posted by dr_dank at 9:10 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Politico have just published an interview with Morgan about last night's show.

Pull-quote: "He was the best advertisement for gun control you could wish for."
posted by LondonYank at 9:12 AM on January 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Shit, he should've gotten down on the floor and wrassled with him. I mean, if you're gonna give Alex Jones that much air time you may as well do it right.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:24 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

A friend at work is a gun aficionado who tells me that even before the spate of shootings that there was a run on lots of models of guns (ar15 & variants, most popularly) that were selling for way over asking price and spurred waiting lists once stock ran out.

I can confirm it. Never had I had so many salesmen pushing the hard sell on me in a gun store because it was only a matter of time until Obama took our guns. They kept saying that they would use some event as an excuse, guess they were right on one hand, but just because your correct doesn't make you moral.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:29 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Here is a direct link to the full interview video.

Alex Jones Vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control Live On CNN

If you really want to see the core of Jones, go to the 3 minute mark and watch for 30 seconds. That pretty well sums up his style, argument and argument style, which is basically The Gish Gallop.
posted by lampshade at 9:32 AM on January 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Metafilter: MASS MURDER PILLS!
posted by Evernix at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

It might be entertaining to watch pundits froth at the mouth, but what qualifications do either of these people have to discuss the problem this country has with out-of-control gun ownership? I mean, guns are a serious problem and this is the best CNN can do? Really?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:39 AM on January 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

In terms of his gun arguments, it's quite confusing. On one hand, he is correct. The first thing totalitarian regimes often do is disarm the populous so that they cannot fight back.

Yeah, like Afghanistan in the 80's or Yugoslavia in the 90's or Somalia in the 90's or Sri Lanka in the 80's... no fighting there.
posted by GuyZero at 9:40 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

I mean, guns are a serious problem and this is the best CNN can do? Really?

24 hours a day is a lot of airtime to fill. And fill it they must.
posted by GuyZero at 9:40 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

How come people who want guns because they are afraid of the government never seem to want to cut US military spending?
posted by fings at 8:17 AM on 1/8
[23 favorites −] Favorite added! [Flagged]
Flagged for fantastic comment!

They never can answer that one.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:41 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

How come people who want guns because they are afraid of the government never seem to want to cut US military spending?

Hmm, I wonder who benefits from both, let's do the math shall we? Increase in private sector retail gun sales, check. Increase in military gun sales, check. Increase in law enforcement gun sales to counteract the "gang murder menace", check. Gee, I wonder if the gun manufacturers might be a source behind this lobbying effort?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:49 AM on January 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

what qualifications do either of these people have to discuss the problem this country has with out-of-control gun ownership?

How much damage would a bulldozer suffer if it rolled straight over both of them?
posted by octobersurprise at 9:55 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Alex Jones also posted a video of him describing an "armed mafia" that was stalking him before/after the interview.

Because the people who argue the most passionately for guns are also the ones with the most irrational fear of them.
posted by pokermonk at 9:55 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Because the people who argue the most passionately for guns are also the ones with the most irrational fear of them.

Which is odd when you think that their belief is that the only defence against armed whackos is to be armed yourself. So why be afraid? Eh? Eh?
posted by LondonYank at 9:58 AM on January 8, 2013

Why is Jones so afraid of a New Yorker trying to light a cigarette on a cold, windy day?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:00 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The fact that it's this guy from Slacker (NSFW language) boggles my mind.

I think you mean this guy from Waking Life (who obviously has some similarity with the earlier character).
posted by TedW at 10:02 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

In terms of his gun arguments, it's quite confusing. On one hand, he is correct. The first thing totalitarian regimes often do is disarm the populous so that they cannot fight back.

Is this true? I remember a couple weeks ago I jumped down the rabbit hole doing an internet search when someone mentioned this was how China became Communist, and I could find no definitive proof that disarming the populace is what caused totalitarianism to come to China. It seemed more like to me the population was disarmed after the regime came to power, then starved the populace, then locked it in a state of periodic revolution with "people's" justice and THEN they passed a law to disarm the population.
posted by FJT at 10:02 AM on January 8, 2013

Wait a minute. People take Alex Jones seriously? Isn't he the guy with the late night radio show about aliens and UFOs? I thought he had an implied "For Novelty Purposes Only" label firmly pasted on.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:10 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

On one hand, he is correct. The first thing totalitarian regimes often do is disarm the populous so that they cannot fight back.

Or, better yet, recruit them with movies like Red Dawn and the like.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Is this true?

Some gun proponents like this quote because it compares current gun control attempts to those of the Nazis. But as the pro-gun FAQ cited above freely concedes, "This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud."
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:12 AM on January 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Wow. As others have pointed out, it takes a lot of work to make Piers Morgan the less annoying one in a given conversation.
posted by threeants at 10:14 AM on January 8, 2013

It's Alex Jones. He's about as representative of gun owners as the Obama phone woman is of Obama supporters.

My response whenever a conservative/Republican voter complains that not all of them are homophobic, education-hating, racist misogynists: No, just the people you vote for.

If Alex Jones and the NRA aren't representative of gun owners views, then gun owners should get off their asses and find someone to speak for them who doesn't sound like either a conspiracy theorist or General Patton.
posted by dry white toast at 10:15 AM on January 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

Another thing to think about with regards to the Gun Control = Totalitarianism debate is the level of arms manufacturing and build-up and the size of the armies under totalitarian regimes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Chavez, the guys that Jones-types like to throw out as examples stockpiled arms and built huge armies. In other words, they put more guns in more hands than the NRA could in its wettest dreams.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

I think you mean this guy from Waking Life (who obviously has some similarity with the earlier character).

Oh yes.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2013

Another thing to think about with regards to the Gun Control = Totalitarianism debate is the level of arms manufacturing and build-up and the size of the armies under totalitarian regimes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Chavez, the guys that Jones-types like to throw out as examples stockpiled arms and built huge armies. In other words, they put more guns in more hands than the NRA could in its wettest dreams.

Some militias are more well-regulated than others.
posted by acb at 10:20 AM on January 8, 2013

Wait a minute. People take Alex Jones seriously? Isn't he the guy with the late night radio show about aliens and UFOs?

That was Art Bell. Unless there was more than one late night radio show about aliens and UFOs, which is certainly possible.
posted by ook at 10:31 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

When I worked in a software dev shop, the devs were almost universally right-out-of-college young, and a not-insubstantial number of them were big-time ditto-heads. And gun nuts. Even more so in the IT department

This sounds very early-90s/late-2000s. I call those guys Slashdot Libertarians.

Seriously, fuck Slashdot. Fuck Slashdot for poisoning a generation of engineers with a philosophy that abnegates any obligation to social responsibility.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2013 [19 favorites]

Some militias are more well-regulated than others.

Yes, but once you've handed the keys to the tank commander, it's hard to take them back.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:38 AM on January 8, 2013

(oops, meant to say mid-90s/late-2000s)
posted by Afroblanco at 10:39 AM on January 8, 2013

Isn't it amazing the way Alex Jones makes you reminisce for the more carefree days of Art Bell?

I dont even think they're comparable. Bell was benign compared to the raving NWO paranoia shtick that Jones is selling.
posted by Liquidwolf at 10:45 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

(ergh. mid-90s/early-2000s)

I'll stop typing now.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:45 AM on January 8, 2013

This sounds very early-90s/late-2000s. I call those guys Slashdot Libertarians.

This sounds very my office right now.
posted by emelenjr at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Seriously, fuck Slashdot.

Is Slashdot really responsible? It doesn't take much to get young men interested in firearms and to buy into their own personal fable and sense of self-importance hook, line, and sinker.
posted by FJT at 10:48 AM on January 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

I find it really hard to take people seriously who use the term New World Order with a straight face. It's not like I haven't listened to their argument, I just think their "proof" unprovable for the most part and really specious, and kinda juvenile.
Is that narrow minded or naive of me?
posted by Liquidwolf at 10:48 AM on January 8, 2013

Of course if you want to see Jones at the zenith of his assholeness go to YouTube and look for "Alex Jones Interviews Noam Chomsky" - It is in 5 parts.

This is from 2007. Jones suckered Chomsky in to do his radio show.
Toward the end of the interview (part 4) Jones turns the discussion to gun control and unloads his unhinged bombast on Chomsky with predictable ugliness.

In Part 5 of the interview Chomsky has left the studio. Jones rants on about Chomsky in his juvenile bully boy voice for about 9 minutes.

Of course the comments are really special.

I was wowed by the fact that Chomsky knew nothing about Jones and actually appeared on his show. I am betting he never made that mistake again.
posted by dougzilla at 10:50 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

That was Art Bell.

Yep, that was my confusion. Thanks.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:55 AM on January 8, 2013

Jones is a huge deal to some of the amateur radio guys I sometimes hang with. If I see a jeep on the road with a porcupine of antennas, odds-on there will be an Infowars or "fluoride=poison" bumper sticker on the back.

But seriously, this interview sounds like the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
posted by scruss at 11:04 AM on January 8, 2013

How come people who want guns because they are afraid of the government never seem to want to cut US military spending?

Beyond the whole "keeping America safe from socialists and terrorists" thing, I think they honestly believe that US troops would, if ordered to act against US citizens on US soil, refuse their orders en-mass and turn their awesome warfighting strength against the government. Freedom ensues.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:05 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Alex Jones is a controversial radio DJ responsible for, amongst other things, starting a petition to have CNN's Piers Morgan deported for comments critical of the Second Amendment.

Conservatives seem to have a peculiar view of the Bill of Amendments as a deck of cards. The Second Amendment obviously trumps the First. Also explains why conservatives believe that the Tenth Amendment allows states to ignore the previous nine.
posted by JackFlash at 11:18 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

How do you yell for that long?

Practice?

It seems Alex noticed there was a difference in the way he was treated at the airport on the way to have this apointment with Mr. Morgan. Jones refused to remove his shoes on the grounds that several other passengers had gone through the checkpoint without removing their shoes.

He's certainly a conspiracy theorist, however,

Interesting how language works. Two words "conspiracy theorist" have a certain emotional baggage. Yet, every so often something that was labelled a 'conspiracy theory' turn out to be validated with facts about an actual conspiracy.

he has a (growing) audience. That cannot be ignored.

One of things Alex will do often is cite his source for why he believes what he believes. Sometimes the source is wrong, other times its quite a leap from the source to the conclusion he draws but by citing the sources it helps his credibility.

But I'm still waiting for him to cite the sources for his claims about what the machine elves want to do.

If Alex Jones and the NRA aren't representative of gun owners views, then gun owners should get off their asses and find someone to speak for them who doesn't sound like either a conspiracy theorist or General Patton.

There is Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms as 2 examples of others POVs on guns. jpfo.org has "interesting" arguments of racism and the need for guns to protect negros - in case the herf-durf racist white crackers crowd want a different POV. gunowners.org

I think they honestly believe that US troops would, if ordered to act against US citizens on US soil, refuse their orders en-mass and turn their awesome warfighting strength against the government.

Its a good thing then the robot drones will follow the commands they are sent. All you need is no need for humans to reload them.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:24 AM on January 8, 2013

This is the best commentary on Alex Jones that I've seen in years.
posted by mrbill at 11:26 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Conspiracy theorists seem to dislike the term "conspiracy theorist". But what else would you call an unproven theory about a conspiracy?
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:27 AM on January 8, 2013

To them they're never unproven, though.
posted by glhaynes at 11:31 AM on January 8, 2013

Two words "conspiracy theorist" have a certain emotional baggage. Yet, every so often something that was labelled a 'conspiracy theory' turn out to be validated with facts about an actual conspiracy.

Yeah, Jones is really more of a conspiracy hypothesiser as his "theories" are not actually tested nor do they stand up to scrutiny of any kind.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:33 AM on January 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

the society as a whole must look at what is causing the violence.

ok - now lets tie this to the other outtake:

the Wild West,

The Wild West as told to us has a backdrop of ex-soldiers. Many of these damaged men understood the cocaine of coca-cola wasn't a solution and 'polite society' didn't want them either so took one of the only 'acceptable' outs - go west and try and work out your post traumatic stress.

The US Society has been occupying other nations for generations. Social problems like cancer, poverty, drugs - all described as "War on".

The citizens are just following the examples of leadership - violence. My guess is there won't be leading by example on the violence issue because it is just too profitable to be violent.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:35 AM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

How come people who want guns because they are afraid of the government never seem to want to cut US military spending?

I think you may not be hanging out with all the gun owners. Most of the ones I associate with say government (meaning federal mostly) is too big, including the standing army. I tend to hang out with fairly well educated people, and the subset of that group that is gun owners are also pretty big in military history and are much, much more nervous about the history of large professional armies just hanging around with nothing to do and politically ambitious generals... The founding fathers were also well aware of this history and tried to put in protections against large peacetime armies (the second amendment was/is a part of this philosophy).

The world in which Alex Jones lives is an extension of the Wild West, where a man's home is his castle, and it's all about him. Individualism at it's most powerful. That is not the way of the world today. The world is becoming – moment by moment – more interdependent and interconnected. The Wild West is over. (also I really liked your whole comment nickrussell, but didn't want to copy it all and tried to pick the best couple of lines for my response).

There is another view of arms being available to the private citizen, that is more collectivist and more community oriented. I think a lot of people on here will disagree but the argument is one worth making, and ties into the anti-tyrant/totalitarianism theme a lot of gun supports use.

Throughout History one of the duties of free citizen was being ready for military service in defense of the nation while not actually a part of the formal army of the state. This is the definition of the militia. Part of this duty was the responsibility of having effective personal military equipment and being practiced in its use (this is the meaning of the well regulated part of the second amendment). This duty/responsibility was for the good of the whole and you were expected to serve under professional officers(the Swiss system is very much in this vein). And it gave rise to the reality that the mark of a free man was the ownership and right to the individual military equipment of his age (this is why the second amendment doesn't apply to things like tanks/artillery/crew served machine guns/hand grenades/etc). So to a lot of gun 'nuts' this is why they are so fanatical in their devotion to the second amendment. It is the mark of free man (and I am not using this in irony/sovereign man wackiness but the classic idea of a free citizen of a republic) and the denial of arms is a step down from citizen to subject.

Like I said a lot of people on here are NOT prone to a kind viewing of this personal philosophy. But i think there is much validity to it. People who view gun ownership as a mark of citizenship and view it as a responsibility are not the problem, do not generally commit crimes and usually are the quiet pillars of society, not because of guns but because they understand responsibility and community and want to preserve it, not overthrow it.

And yeah, Alex Jones is a nut, probably shouldn't be allowed near guns and is not a good example for the pro gun side. I stopped listening to right wing talk radio because of nuts like him (and michael savage and some others) stopped even bringing up good points and rational philosophy and just started being anti-obama and anti-left bombastic blowhards. BTW their was an element on the left just as shrill and hateful when bush was president also and they were why i had a hard time listening to some of their output for that 8 years as well.
posted by bartonlong at 11:35 AM on January 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

SharkParty: "
Reacting to a gun related tragedy by conspicuously showing off your right to buy guns is cloudy shit-brained thinking."

I was in something of a media blackout the day of the Connecticut shootings. On the way down to a friend's uncle's country place for the weekend, I decided to pick up some shells to try out the little .22 we found in my grandpa's basement. It was 4:30 on a cloudy Friday, the week after deer season, and the place was packed. (Rest assured I had the only Obama bumper sticker in the parking lot.) I only heard about the massacre after I got on the highway and turned on NPR.

What the hell is wrong with some people, that their first response to a bunch of little kids getting killed by a nut with a gun is to go BUY MORE GUNS!?!?

(the little .22 didn't shoot reliably. I'm kinda relieved.)
posted by notsnot at 11:39 AM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I think you may not be hanging out with all the gun owners.

When one wants to ban guns one self selects data supporting that POV. (note how the idea of SSRI's and violence is selected out of the discussion ... because that doesn't help their POV)

BTW their was an element on the left just as shrill and hateful when bush was president also and they were why i had a hard time listening to some of their output for that 8 years as well.

I don't think Alex had any use for Bush either. Alex is an equal opportunist in pointing out how leadership is flawed.

The only thing I was looking forward to under a Rmoney administration was to watch the 'herf-durf X is bad' Bluians come out in force to rail about how what Rmoney was doing was bad and how they ignored the present leadership when it did the same thing. Now I'll have to wait 'til after the Hillary Clinton administration is over.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:45 AM on January 8, 2013

It is the mark of free man

No, actually it comes from a misunderstanding of what a "free man" was. It's actually the mark of a "villein", a person who, as a resident of a city (ville) that pays rent is free from the serf's obligations to work the land in order to pay the Lord. In return for added rights a villein had to be "armed" (as in they had to keep a sword in their hovel) and prepared for service when called in defense of the city, however this was usually a ceremonial duty and has trickled down to some of the trappings you see mayors of european cities wearing when they cut ribbons at new shopping centres. They were NOT free men, in that they were still obligated to service as they were neither nobility nor clergy.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:46 AM on January 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Alex Jones also posted a video of him describing an "armed mafia" that was stalking him before/after the interview.

"If you don’t know that Bloomberg is total mafia, you’re on another planet....They’re thugs. I know what they are....If something happens to us, or we’re killed by crackheads, it was the NYPD or mafia they hired."

What a troll!
posted by ericb at 11:48 AM on January 8, 2013

People who view gun ownership as a mark of citizenship and view it as a responsibility are not the problem, do not generally commit crimes and usually are the quiet pillars of society, not because of guns but because they understand responsibility and community and want to preserve it, not overthrow it.

I hang out with gun owners not because of choice, but because there's no escaping it where I live. You're correct. These gun owners are the 'quiet pillars of society' until they feel threatened. And they understand and want to preserve their community, because it's 'theirs', and only if it remains theirs.

The minute anything threatens their community, what they feel the norms should be, then many are no longer quiet, no longer pillars of society, and scary in their defense of what they feel the community should be and the lengths they'll go to keep it that way.
posted by justgary at 11:54 AM on January 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Yeah, Alex Jones is more William Cooper scary than Art Bell amusing.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:55 AM on January 8, 2013

And this is why we call them gun nuts.
posted by Decani at 11:58 AM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

No, actually it comes from a misunderstanding of what a "free man" was. It's actually the mark of a "villein", a person who, as a resident of a city (ville) that pays rent is free from the serf's obligations to work the land in order to pay the Lord. In return for added rights a villein had to be "armed" (as in they had to keep a sword in their hovel) and prepared for service when called in defense of the city, however this was usually a ceremonial duty and has trickled down to some of the trappings you see mayors of european cities wearing when they cut ribbons at new shopping centres. They were NOT free men, in that they were still obligated to service as they were neither nobility nor clergy.

I was thinking more the greek hoplite (except Sparta which had a standing professional army) and the republic roman army, not so much the medieval town dweller. The British yeoman is a better example from that time period and I am sure there were other examples of free holders (who were neither clergy nor nobility) expected to serve at need in other medieval societies. I am not a historical scholar and I am sure there are exceptions are maybe this isn't the whole story, but it is the popular version of history that this philosophy is built on, and there is historical precedence for it. Far more that exists for believing banning weapons will make humans peaceful.

The minute anything threatens their community, what they feel the norms should be, then many are no longer quiet, no longer pillars of society, and scary in their defense of what they feel the community should be and the lengths they'll go to keep it that way.

how is that any different from any other group of humans? It even happens on here. See the recent thread on health care (not defending the idea there just pointing out that this reaction is universal to humans, not gun 'nuts' or any other group not in favor here on metafilter).
posted by bartonlong at 12:03 PM on January 8, 2013

Thorzdad: I think they honestly believe that US troops would, if ordered to act against US citizens on US soil, refuse their orders en-mass and turn their awesome warfighting strength against the government.

I thought the civil war pretty much nixed that idea. No shortage of bloodshed there. Now, mix in the rise of drone combat that makes obliterating a town as easy as playing Xbox.
posted by dr_dank at 12:07 PM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ha - I was just thinking about Bill Cooper. I used to listen to his Hour of the Time show, and a friend recently found the audio archive of the shows.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:07 PM on January 8, 2013

I am sure there were other examples of free holders

There were a small minority of peasantry (neither nobility nor clergy, <10% in mideaval England) that were free holders, that is, they owned (or rented) their homes and had no obligation to the Lord. As they weren' obligated to service, they wouldn't have been required to hold arms as part of the militia (they probably did for self-defense though). Thus the misunderstanding. If they claim to be freeholders then they aren't subject to militia obligations. If they are subject to obligations, they aren't actually "free".

Note: Even Nobility and Clergy had obligations to their superiors right up the heirarchy to the King and Pope, who held obligations to God.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:28 PM on January 8, 2013

JackFlash: "Alex Jones is a controversial radio DJ responsible for, amongst other things, starting a petition to have CNN's Piers Morgan deported for comments critical of the Second Amendment.

Conservatives seem to have a peculiar view of the Bill of Amendments as a deck of cards. The Second Amendment obviously trumps the First."

I don't know about Jones, but Glenn Beck seems to be under the impression that the Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens. I'm not sure where he gets this from.
posted by brundlefly at 12:28 PM on January 8, 2013

How come people who want guns because they are afraid of the government never seem to want to cut US military spending?

All of the Ron Paul libertarian gun fans I know want to cut US military spending. They are isolationist and critical of the Iraq War and the War on Terror.
posted by straight at 12:51 PM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

bartonlong: how is that any different from any other group of humans? It even happens on here. See the recent thread on health care (not defending the idea there just pointing out that this reaction is universal to humans, not gun 'nuts' or any other group not in favor here on metafilter).

Other groups of humans aren't as well armed as gun nuts.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:25 PM on January 8, 2013

"Perhaps white men like Alex Jones want to keep their guns because it's one of the last vestiges of a dying entitlement."

You know, lately, every time there is some 'crazy view' that happens to be espoused by someone who is white and a man; you can almost count on someone on the blue to draw the race card. Am I the only one to notice this distrubing trend on the blue lately? Especially disturbing are 1) it seems to be accepted and even favorited and 2) it seems to be licensed in attacks on conservatives from people who fancy themselves as 'liberals.'

It's worth reminding you that isms cut both ways. Be careful not to feed the beast. Every time you hate on 'white men' you generate free passes for ignorance in one of them to pass such hate on to others or even back at you. You justify and promote ignorance.

So please, everyone, don't let yourself or others casually use phases like 'white man.' It's as ignorant and offensive as any other casual grouping based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc..

Before you argue with me, reflect for a moment that there really is no such thing as a 'white man' except in the same ignorant world where other less acceptable isms of ignorance reside.

Thanks.
posted by astrobiophysican at 1:41 PM on January 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

Most of the ones I associate with say government (meaning federal mostly) is too big, including the standing army.

This may be true (true that gun people say this, though what they say may be true, also), but they've made no impression on the body politic, obviously. Which suggests to me that either the gun people who say this don't vote their beliefs or that the gun people who say this are too small a minority to be heard. Because given the influence of the gun lobby on both parties, if the leaders and the followers wanted a smaller military, they would likely have some effect.

reflect for a moment that there really is no such thing as a 'white man'

As a white man, I beg to differ.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:49 PM on January 8, 2013

Well this just got ugly and can reasonably be expected to get worse.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:00 PM on January 8, 2013

Y'all want to cool it, please?
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2013

Just shaking the bush, boss.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2013

And this is why we call them gun nuts.

You're not kidding.
posted by sneebler at 3:40 PM on January 8, 2013

When even Glenn Beck thinks you're a crazy person, you've got issues.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:50 PM on January 8, 2013

you can almost count on someone on the blue to draw the race card.

Slapping a 'racist' label is a quick way to discredit. The Blue is a reflection of the national debate tactics.

Alex Jones ... thinks the Jews and Freemasons are lizard people sent here from another planet to steal your purity of essence.

I'm going to ask for actual proof on this one. If you want to hang Alex - hang him by his own words rather than making things up.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:10 PM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

And this is why we call them gun nuts.

You're not kidding.

(I am not sure if you are commenting on why people are asking or the ammo purchase, I am assuming the questioning of the ammo purchase)

That really is a LOT of ammunition. That is the kind of purchase the army makes for its training purposes...

This is the kind of thing that everyone should be asking why about. And remember the last time we have some horrific event happen here (9/11) that everyone starting screaming about safety and how some group wanted to kill us all. That rush to do something gave us DHS, the patriot act and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So be very careful when told we must do this to make us safer and we must do it right now, or this (out group) is going to kill us all.
posted by bartonlong at 4:10 PM on January 8, 2013

So please, everyone, don't let yourself or others casually use phases like 'white man.' It's as ignorant and offensive as any other casual grouping based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc..

Before you argue with me, reflect for a moment that there really is no such thing as a 'white man' except in the same ignorant world where other less acceptable isms of ignorance reside.

So instead of using the term "white man" (which I haven't, BTW), can I use "male member of the majority who continually insists on playing the persecution card, regardless of the facts"?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:05 PM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Which suggests to me that either the gun people who say this don't vote their beliefs or that the gun people who say this are too small a minority to be heard.

Like I said: the Ron Paul fans. Not exactly steering the Republican Party.
posted by straight at 5:06 PM on January 8, 2013

When even Glenn Beck thinks you're a crazy person, you've got issues.

i was looking for the right station for the traffic report between ypsilanti and downtown detroit today and happened to run across glenn beck's show, where he played some of this morgan/jones interview and called both of them irrational

he had a lot else to say and it seemed to be an interesting example of cognitive dissonance at work

first he claimed that obama's banking buddies were cutting lines of credit to gun manufacturers and he had talked to one person who didn't dare come on his show or mention the bank's name because he was afraid of further repercussions - and claimed that bank of america had cut off another gun manufacturer, although he didn't say which one

conspiracy theory, right?

then he moved on to a tape of some union organizer at a meeting - and at first, her comments seemed rational to him - but then she started talking about how the rich weren't going to allow the electorate to legislate away their wealth - which glenn beck agreed with and then went on to say that it wouldn't be right, as the rich had EARNED their wealth, (or inherited it), and so they deserved to have it - then the union organizer went on to say that we were going back to the days of the robber barons, where the elite used the workers as slaves and the workers responded by using violence

glenn was quite outraged by this - but earlier, he had made the comment that if guns were banned, that we would see very bad times in this country, that the reaction would be an awful thing and there was no telling what it could lead to in this country

this puzzles me - it's alright for the rich to use their power to cut down the working class to peons and if they react with violence, that's a reprehensible thing

but if the rich use their control of the credit lines to shut down businesses they don't approve of, that's bad - and it's understandable that people might want to resist that, or the government's attempts to take away guns

he hasn't really thought this through very well

then he went on to say that we were headed towards hard, hard times, that we had advanced wonderfully in our technology in 2000 years but hadn't advanced at all in our philosophy or morality and that we were in the position of 13 year olds having access to nuclear weapons and information technology

meaning the government, i suppose, but why would those in charge of workers' lives and wages - or lines of credit - be any more mature and responsible? - there's plenty of evidence to show that they are not

so people should submit to the elite unless they're government elites and/or they do things that HE feels are an infringement on our rights, such as pulling lines of credit to gun companies

so obviously the people in charge of government are a bunch of 13 year old irresponsibles, but the people in charge of business aren't

i gave up and turned the station - i gave up on the traffic report, too, as i'd already made it to outer drive and everything seemed fine
posted by pyramid termite at 5:08 PM on January 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

we had advanced wonderfully in our technology in 2000 years but hadn't advanced at all in our philosophy or morality and that we were in the position of 13 year olds having access to nuclear weapons and information technology

Well, in the case of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, that statement is actually true.
posted by dnash at 5:42 PM on January 8, 2013

When even Glenn Beck thinks you're a crazy person, you've got issues.

Useful idiot is suddenly not so useful. "Alex, baby, love the voters you rounded up, but ixnay on the ellingyay."
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:49 PM on January 8, 2013

I'm going to ask for actual proof on this one. If you want to hang Alex - hang him by his own words rather than making things up.

Fine.

From the FPP 'interview' with Piers Morgan:

"I want to get people off pills that the insert says will make you commit suicide and kill people! I want to blame the real culprit! Suicide pills! Mass murder pills! First time anyone's ever heard this, by the way."

Re the Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others:

The whole thing stinks to high heaven," he says. "This kid Loughner disappeared for days at a time before the shooting? My gut tells me this was a staged mind-control operation. The government employs geometric psychological-warfare experts that know exactly how to indirectly manipulate unstable people through the media. They implanted the idea in his head by repeatedly asking, 'Is Giffords in danger?'" (source)

Re the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

"Obviously a eugenics operation." (source)

Here he is on the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference:

Do you understand how diabolical this is? It isn’t a bunch of idiot tree-huggers that mean well and just got their science wrong. These are vicious Nazis—it’s the only way to describe them. But in truth, they’re worse than the Nazis … They [the Malthusians] came up with this idea to exterminate, and reduce births … It is life and death! These people are taking over right now! … Did you get the memo not to drink the water. Did you get the memo not to take the inoculations … ? Do you like being sterilized? Do you like being killed?! You better grow up, ladies and gentlemen. You better realize that we’re facing a threat far more dangerous than Mao Tse Tung and Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin! … This is the New World Order crashing the gates. They’re spilling over the wall. If this was the Alamo … Those of us fighting the globalists, we’re like Davey Crockett, we’re out of ammo, we’re swinging our muskets. A lot of us are going to get killed, we’re going to get imprisoned. This is only going to get worse in the years to come. But, you take my life, I take yours, too. (source)

Here he is claiming that the 1969 moon landing was fake and that thousands of astronauts died in secret.

Enough?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:19 PM on January 8, 2013 [11 favorites]

Hahahahaha. That's awesome. Someone really needs to make an Alex Jones Conspiracy Generator. The only downside is that nobody would believe it was fake. I suspect a conspiracy theory involving Jews, Freemasons, lizard people, and General Jack D. Ripper would be a step down on the nutso scale for him.
posted by Afroblanco at 6:29 PM on January 8, 2013

You will see infowars stickers on Lexus SUVs and Mercedes, you'll see them on working class trucks and you will see them on the vehicles of the young, "libertarian, pot-head Ron-Paulites.
Across the nation, the audience may skew older, but he has a following amongst the young too. All the stuff he has done with Joe Rogan and the other Sacred Cow comedians does draw them in.

In Australia, Alex Jones is listened to by the vast horde of fuzzy-headed hippies who distrust the government - any government - and constantly want me to know 'the TRUTH, MAN'. Despite loving a country where both the left and right wing are committed to gun control many of them are nonetheless angry about GMO foods not being banned, chemtrails, vaccinations, anti-depressants and other things of that sort. I try to unfriend them but living in a left-wing area in a country saturated with sun and good pot means they spring up like weeds. I had an artist friend claim that both the Port Arthur Massacre (which triggered Australian gun control) and Columbine were orchestrated by 'them', who every 'they' are.

By the way, what did Piers Morgan do to get so hated? Unless I'm wrong, and everyone who calls him a c-word means it in the affectionate way.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 6:30 PM on January 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ya know, I liked it when The Bugle podcast start talking about re-doing 1776 all over again. That was funny.
posted by the cydonian at 6:33 PM on January 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

By the way, what did Piers Morgan do to get so hated? Unless I'm wrong, and everyone who calls him a c-word means it in the affectionate way.

Me too - as a furriner I'm only mildly disaffectionate towards Piers for being a Pom and being a third of the team who gave us Susan Boyle, but is it the standard US "Brits are the evil guys" mindset or did he punch Hilary?
posted by arzakh at 6:46 PM on January 8, 2013

Also, someone upthread expressed a sentiment along the lines of "don't dismiss 'conspiracy theories' because sometimes they turn out to be true." Which is a ridiculous line of thinking. You simply cannot live your life that way. That's like saying, "never fly in an airplane, because sometimes they crash". Yeah, sometimes crazy shit happens. But, for the most part, people in power aren't a whole lot smarter than your average person, and not a whole lot better at getting away with shit. No rhetorical tool beats Occam's Razor, in my book.

In fact, all the truly outrageous things that've happened in the last decade or so -- the fraudulent case for the Iraq war, Guantanamo, NDAA -- have happened right out in the open. No conspiracy necessary! Honestly, I'm surprised the conspiracy theorist subculture survived the Iraq war. I mean, if you can get away with lies like that, what's even the point of having a conspiracy?
posted by Afroblanco at 6:47 PM on January 8, 2013 [9 favorites]

first he claimed that obama's banking buddies were cutting lines of credit to gun manufacturers and he had talked to one person who didn't dare come on his show or mention the bank's name because he was afraid of further repercussions - and claimed that bank of america had cut off another gun manufacturer, although he didn't say which one

Glenn beck is normally full of shit (as is Alex jones) but this one has at least some truth to it (although I don't think Obama or his administration had anything to do with it). B of A has a long running history of trying to shut down gun businesses that they opened accounts with, as well as illegally foreclosing on homes.

I am also sure their is more to the story than the Facebook post puts up.
posted by bartonlong at 6:47 PM on January 8, 2013

Why is everyone calling Alex Jones right wing when he's been a fringe extremist government hating conspiracy theory radical for decades?

He was one of the only unwaveringly rabid critics of the Bush administration, and was dismissed / embraced by people during the time I was going to school in Austin (90s) as a radical America-hating leftist.

I really doubt he's changed all that much over the years. I mean, this was a guy yelling vociferously at high volume from day one of the Patriot Act, before we even invaded Iraq, way before Afghanistan talking about how the American people were being duped and the country was going down the shitter.

Alex Jones pretty consistently put together a lot of crazy half baked unvetted stuff back in the day but there was frequently a kernel of uncomfortable truth to it. Granted I haven't heard him for over a decade.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:53 PM on January 8, 2013

By the way, what did Piers Morgan do to get so hated?

My gym had him on when I was training for a half marathon and I swear to God, I would rather have been stucking watching the Palin episodes from Dancing with the Stars. Just awful interviews. But I think it's telling that the response isn't a reasoned argument on behalf of guns, but instead the modern equivalent of BURN THE WITCH! as if deporting him would somehow null Morgan's statements...
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:23 PM on January 8, 2013

Alex Jones is in the business of selling merch to paranoids, and business is good. I have no idea if he believes the crap he spews, but I do know he makes a comfortable living off of DVDs, T-shirts, etc.

One of my weirder temp jobs was working for an answering service. It would have been one of my more boring temp jobs, except one of our accounts was Alex Jones's merchandise line. I spent hours listening to people explain how secret naked conspirators in the woods were going to take over the world (or maybe had already taken it over) and patiently trying to convince people who were clearly not mentally well that the only way I could send them a CD was if they gave me an address, and well, maybe Echelon was listening but we were just an answering service, we didn't do anything but arrange the deliveries... it was eye-opening. And more than a little disturbing.
posted by restless_nomad at 8:25 PM on January 8, 2013 [12 favorites]

embraced by people during the time I was going to school in Austin (90s) as a radical America-hating leftist.

Totally different experience here. Been in Austin since the early-90s and he was always seen, by everyone I knew, as a Black Helicopter/Janet Reno fearing, Patriot Movement/Militia Supporting, hard right whackjob conspiracy theorist. He's gotten more strident in the last decade and a half, openly calling for armed revolt (soon, really soon, he promises), but the topics are the same (now with more climate change denial and discussion of religion!).
posted by Seamus at 8:25 PM on January 8, 2013

What did Piers Morgan do to get so hated

You will, perhaps, have to read between lines of the fairly neutral Wikipedia account - but what it boils down to is that, despite sometimes OK political positions, Morgan is a serial abuser of any power he happens to be given.
posted by pascal at 10:40 PM on January 8, 2013

Piers Morgan was an enthusiastic bag-carrier and friend of Rupert Murdoch in the 90's, when he was editor of the News of the World, peddling intrusive celebrity gossip - the NotW was a trashy red-top paper.

He then moved to editor of the Mirror, where he carried on with much the same style of aggressive and nasty 'journalism'. While there, he got busted for buying a ton of shares in Viglen (it later emerged he put pretty much all his and his wife's savings into them) shortly before they got touted in his paper as a 'buy' stock.

What finally did him in as editor was when the Mirror ran a massive front-page story of photos of british soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner, including infamously urinating on him; except even trivial analysis showed the photos were fake (wrong uniforms, boots, equipment etc). He was sacked amongst allegations that the photos ended up being a recruiting tool for iraqi and al-quaeda insurgents.

Meanwhile, in the early 2000's, he was bragging about and showing off how to hack phone voicemails - making a joke to her face of being able to listen to recorded messages between Ulrika Johnson and Sven Goran-Erikkson (their affair, with him being manager of the England national football team was a bit of a scandal at the time).

At this time, the News of the World, his former paper, was hacking many, many people's voicemails for sting and dirty journalism - including the voicemail of Milly Dowler, an abducted (and murdered) 13 year old girl - so much so, they deleted messages when the box got full when she was still being looked for, so her parents thought she was still alive and checking messages. This particular event was the one that brought down the paper when it became public nearly 10 years later.

The leveson enquiry showed that Morgan knew about the voicemail hacking that was endemic in the tabloid paper world, and certainly didn't think it was serious - not a great attitude for an editor of a tabloid at the time, especially given the potential source of some of the stories his paper printed, thus leading him to be criticised by Leveson:

"Lord Justice Leveson has described former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan's assertion that he had no knowledge of alleged phone hacking as "utterly unpersuasive", and said the practice may well have occurred at the title in the late 1990s."

And that's all besides the fact that on TV at least in his post-editor career as pundit, he has a long history of being an abrasive, aggressive, nasty and odious tit of a man.

Please, please keep the wanker. We really don't want him back.
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:24 AM on January 9, 2013 [11 favorites]

"When you raise your voice and go full crazy, you've already lost."

Unless, of course, you're totalitarian, or fascist, or ranting about the rise of a militant republic... in which case you're potentially dangerous.
posted by markkraft at 2:07 AM on January 9, 2013

[Glenn Beck] hasn't really thought this through very well

Sure he has. Things he doesn't like are bad.

Duh.
posted by fleetmouse at 3:53 AM on January 9, 2013

Please, please keep the wanker. We really don't want him back.

How about we keep Piers Morgan and you can have Alex Jones? Sound like a good deal?
posted by FJT at 7:09 AM on January 9, 2013 [3 favorites]

How much damage would a bulldozer suffer if it rolled straight over both of them?

"None at all," said Mr. Prosser.
posted by Celsius1414 at 8:52 AM on January 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Jon Stewart Calls Out Gun Control Opponents: 'It Is Absolutely The Time To Talk' (w/ video).
posted by ericb at 1:10 PM on January 9, 2013

Chris Rock: 'You should have a mortgage to buy a gun'.
posted by ericb at 1:11 PM on January 9, 2013

White House Responds To Petition To Deport Piers Morgan

The White House responded to the petition to deport Piers Morgan in a statement defending freedom of speech on Wednesday.

... The White House released its comment in a piece entitled, "When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too." "Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First," White House press secretary Jay Carney wrote.

He continued, "Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment -- or any other matter of public concern."

posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on January 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Colbert Defends NRA's Gun Control Backlash (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 11:32 AM on January 10, 2013

"don't dismiss 'conspiracy theories' because sometimes they turn out to be true." Which is a ridiculous line of thinking.

Which is a nice straw man you are putting up to what was actually said.

But you got to the other point I was going to make once there was a response - what does one call out-in-the-open actions of people in the public space that benefit a small number of private interests at the expense of a large number of other human beings? Events that, if one was doing them "in private" would then qualify as a conspiracy which one could then have a theory about.

A separate discussion, as an example, could be about the "theory" that Mr. Cheney used his political influence to steer oil contracts to Haliburton. Instead, nourishing the conspiracy theories about Cheney and Halliburton fostered by the Democrats, A fine example of:
1) one man's "established fact" is another man's "wacky conspiracy theory". (and picked as something that would be seen as "fact" by a slice of The Blue no matter what any "official investigation" would determine)
and
2) The use of the term "conspiracy theory" by one side to attempt to shut down debate/discussion by another side.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:21 PM on January 10, 2013

In case one wants to watch not-Alex talk with Mr. Morgan - Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America
posted by rough ashlar at 3:24 PM on January 10, 2013

a kernel of uncomfortable truth to it.

I'm have to make a stretch to find 'the grain of truth' on a couple of these
but I didn't want to just post the SSRI law link and leave the rest un-touched.

When Alex being useful - he will cite the 'uncomfortable truth' he's basing his rant off of. Because then one can judge his understanding or at least gives you a name or event for your own research into what happened.

want to get people off pills that the insert says will make you commit suicide and kill people!

Akathisia is but one in a long list of side effects that SSRI makers were able to keep hidden, as they settled thousands of lawsuits out of court, by obtaining court orders to seal documents produced in litigation. For instance, a 1984 Eli Lilly document showed akathisia occurred in at least 1% of patients long before Prozac was approved. Akathisia suicidal victimIn a paper entitled, "Suicides and Homicides in Patients Taking Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft: Why They Keep Happening - And Why They Will Continue," Dr Jay Cohen points out that, as soon SSRI's arrived on the market in the late 1980s, reports of sudden, unexpected suicides and homicides by patients taking the drugs began to come in.

mind-control operation.

Does anyone believe that MK-ULTRA is made up? Or is the quibble over what was disclosed to Congress as part of the Church hearings under oath was made up? Of course, the CIA has said all such activity was finished in the 1970's and the Laudner shooter would not have been born when it wrapped up, but what was going on with MK-Ultra should be considered an 'uncomfortable grain' in the Nation's old shoe pile.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:"Obviously a eugenics operation."

Eugenics was popular and well defined with what their goals are. And while the foundation is attempting to run a eugenics operation on mosquito, one has a long stretch to make the mosquito project as eugenic because of wiping out part of the biodiversity.

They [the Malthusians] came up with this idea to exterminate, and reduce births

Malthus existed and his observation about food being a limit to population was written about and had/has true believers. Some eugenicists used Mathus as an excuse as to why the "lesser people" or "useless eaters" be gotten rid of. Malthus via the comment about Francis Gelton's eugenics did not seem to be in favour of eugenics however.

Malthus, being a Man of God, wanted to see less poor because that would mean less suffering of the poor. Alex's reporting of "what Malthus believed" doesn't mesh with what I've read and understood what Malthus was saying. I don't see the "exterminate" position and birth reduction does tie to poverty/suffering so I'll declare him getting a "grain of truth" right about wanting to see less poor only as a way to support the 'based on a truth' thesis some support.

1969 moon landing was fake

Errr astronauts exist? English is made of words? (thank you for stopping as I was pulling some tendons trying to find a kernel of truth. ) Such a claim should have some actual evidence to back it up, esp the thousands died part.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:56 PM on January 10, 2013

taken from elsewhere w/o attribution:

"The second clause is inseparable from the first.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

Gun Control will not infringe this - register with the authorities, prove you are not insane and you will get arms to keep and in some states, to bear. The right not to be infringed is predicated on maintenance of the "well-regulated militia."

Every town and city has one of these now - they are police forces. Anyone can join the police forces who qualifies. The keeping and bearing of arms is not to be infringed so as to maintain a "well-regulated militia."

The Civil War established a Federal and State authority system that supersedes in practice and in law the "well-regulated militia" of old.

Nowhere does that 2nd Amendment state that the keeping and bearing or arms cannot be regulated, controlled. It only says that the keeping and bearing cannot be eliminated entirely.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:59 AM on January 11, 2013

Whoa. The assertion that the second amendment protects the right of local government's to maintain armed police forces is not going to convince anyone who isn't simply looking for a way to justify something they already believe. It's practically nonsensical. It's true that the right to keep arms can and should be regulated (just as the right to free speech recognized in the first amendment is in many ways regulated) but the rest of the comment is... just no. It's not a good argument.

The way to go is to point out that rights are never absolute. The right to free speech is perhaps the most important right we possess as recognized in the first amendment but you still can't commit libel. You can't falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater. You can't seriously threaten the life of the president. And so on. Similarly, there are plenty of things we can do to legislate firearms without violating the second amendment. No mental gymnastics regarding police forces required.
posted by Justinian at 11:21 AM on January 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

Alex Jones: "The reason there are so many gay people now is because it's a chemical warfare operation ..." (Watch 'till the end where he warns that drinking from a "contaminated" juice box will make you want to "have a baby," "wear a mini skirt," and "put on lipstick.")
posted by octobersurprise at 11:46 AM on January 11, 2013

Alex Jones Blasts Piers Morgan, ‘Despicable’ Glenn Beck, And Goes On ‘Mad As Hell’ Tirade.
posted by ericb at 2:34 PM on January 11, 2013

From ericb's link:

"Glenn Beck knows the Republican Party is dying, he knows the Democratic Party is basically turning into a massive system And so he wants to basically come in, because most Americans call themselves libertarians, and he wants to brand it so that he’s the leader, and he’s the head of libertarians."

I know it's low on the Disconnected From Reality scale for Jones, but for some reason that stood out to me. What a strange claim.
posted by brundlefly at 2:49 PM on January 11, 2013

You can't make this stuff up.

One Month After Newtown, NRA Releases First-Person Shooter Game with AK-47.
posted by ericb at 5:17 PM on January 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

The TL;DR money line from the NRA game release article:

According to the Apple-approved description of the game from its developers at Medl Mobile, which strives to "collaborate with genius video game creators and strategic business leader," NRA: Practice Range is appropriate for children ages four and up
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 4:32 AM on January 15, 2013

Alex knows that you nerds are talking about him.
posted by HuronBob at 9:51 AM on January 19, 2013

Bill Maher On Gun Rights vs. Privacy: Second Amendment Isn't Under Attack, Everything Else Is (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 11:11 AM on January 19, 2013

Asked about how he would treat his critics if they were appearing on Britain’s Got Talent, a show on which Morgan appeared as a judge, the CNN host remarked, “I’d replace the buzzers with machine guns and just take them all out and do the public a massive favor.”
posted by rough ashlar at 7:37 PM on January 22, 2013

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Thusly - are the only protected guns ones that have a military/militia purpose?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:47 PM on January 22, 2013

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

That is EXACTLY what miller said but miller is not a good case to base any kind of precedent on. The defendants, or there lawyers did not show up for the trial and the reason no evidence was found was because no evidence was offered. In just about every other case which something similair happened the case was thrown out and the lower court ruling was allowed to stand, in which case the NFA would have been found unconstitutional. But the supreme court, by then, was kinda scared of Roosevelt and getting pretty full of his justices anyway, and so they weren't going to throw out one of his pieces of anti-crime legislation (but, by then, the crimes the NFA was for had been ended by the repeal of prohibition...these things take on a life of their own and often don't really address the real problem or cause). At that time there were units in both the national guard, reserve and active service issued shotguns with shorter barrels and also rifles with shorter barrels and basically all the things that the NFA covered. It was originally also intended to place handguns in the same category as machine guns but that was taken out by women's rights groups since that was the type of gun used most widely by women to protect themselves.
posted by bartonlong at 9:07 PM on January 22, 2013

« Older Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a... | "Level four can withstand an AK-47" Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

An uncivil discussion on gun control
January 8, 2013 7:15 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

An uncivil discussion on gun control January 8, 2013 7:15 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

An uncivil discussion on gun control
January 8, 2013 7:15 AM Subscribe